An Auction...

[Guest Jlall]

Is Hx of hearts really good enough?

My partner had AQ tight fwiw. I do not know if it should be 2 honors doubleton or 1, but I would have assumed 1.

[foo]

Foo you are not an advanced or expert at bridge, please don't derail my thead. I posted this auction to get the views of advanced and/or expert posters.

And you are getting them. Your comment is both assuming and arrogant.

 

In fact, not only are you getting the opinion of =this= advanced or expert player, you are also getting the opinions of the calls and emails I've made on this topic to other expert players.

 

FTR, mikeh is well in step with them. All of them think this is an interesting and not well discussed sequence.

 

Please check your assumptions and attitude at the door.

[han]

I'm going to make a case for the Q10x KJ xxx AKJxx hand that Arend gave, not because I think that hand is clearly right or that I would picture partner with that hand at the table (I'm really not sure how I would take it) but because I think it deserves more credit than people have given it so far.

 

What are the alternatives:

 

- bid 3D: To me this shows diamonds.

- bid 3H: partner will expect 3 hearts. I know Justin and Kevin were playing precision but that was not the question in the OP so partner may have a very strong hand. I would hate to lie about my heart length right now.

- bid 4H: I play that this is a picture jump. If it is a sign off then that would be fine.

- bid 2NT and pass 3NT: I think this will be the wrong spot too often.

 

So with these agreements I think that the 2NT, 4H route is best, well, of course only if we are confident that partner will interpret it as such. If we are then it is actually quite a good description. And if partner bids 3C, 3D or 3H instead of 3NT then we have an easy next call.

 

I think that the xx Kx AKxx AKxxx hand also makes perfect sense. I don't think that 4H should be forcing, partner could bid 5H to force (well, if you think that that is not forcing, clearly it should show a better hand than 4H so that would make 4H NF for sure).

 

I think you two recovered really well from these two boards Justin, soon after you got some good results. It was a pleasure to watch. At some point it looked like you might still create a comeback but I guess it wasn't meant to be. Very disappointing not to win the match but still a great performance!

[Guest Jlall]

I'm going to make a case for the Q10x KJ xxx AKJxx hand that Arend gave, not because I think that hand is clearly right or that I would picture partner with that hand at the table (I'm really not sure how I would take it) but because I think it deserves more credit than people have given it so far.

 

What are the alternatives:

 

- bid 3D: To me this shows diamonds.

- bid 3H: partner will expect 3 hearts. I know Justin and Kevin were playing precision but that was not the question in the OP so partner may have a very strong hand. I would hate to lie about my heart length right now.

- bid 4H: I play that this is a picture jump. If it is a sign off then that would be fine.

- bid 2NT and pass 3NT: I think this will be the wrong spot too often.

 

So with these agreements I think that the 2NT, 4H route is best, well, of course only if we are confident that partner will interpret it as such. If we are then it is actually quite a good description. And if partner bids 3C, 3D or 3H instead of 3NT then we have an easy next call.

 

I think that the xx Kx AKxx AKxxx hand also makes perfect sense. I don't think that 4H should be forcing, partner could bid 5H to force (well, if you think that that is not forcing, clearly it should show a better hand than 4H so that would make 4H NF for sure).

 

I think you two recovered really well from these two boards Justin, soon after you got some good results. It was a pleasure to watch. At some point it looked like you might still create a comeback but I guess it wasn't meant to be. Very disappointing not to win the match but still a great performance!

Nice post.

 

Yes we were playing precision so that affects things a lot (like 4H is not a picture jump etc). I am not surprised you can make good cases for both sides. I think you just need to agree one way or another.

[inquiry]

I agree with MikeH on this one... without diamonds stopped, 2NT (waiting, expoloratory, what ever) does not seem reasonable as even if NT is right, it will wrong side it. A 3♦ bid seems in order to me.

[mikeh]

Foo you are not an advanced or expert at bridge, please don't derail my thead. I posted this auction to get the views of advanced and/or expert posters.

And you are getting them. Your comment is both assuming and arrogant.

 

In fact, not only are you getting the opinion of =this= advanced or expert player, you are also getting the opinions of the calls and emails I've made on this topic to other expert players.

 

FTR, mikeh is well in step with them. All of them think this is an interesting and not well discussed sequence.

 

Please check your assumptions and attitude at the door.

Please, please don't quote me as someone who agrees with your posts. I don't disagree with all of them.. but:

 

there are those with whom I am in frequent agreement and with whose p.ov. I can empathize and understand even when I disagree on the particular argument in question (justin, josh, frances, han, and a lot of others who I hope I don't insult by not listing here) and those with whom I often but not always find myself disagreeing. I wil not name them.. they know who they are and so do other frequent readers.. you are in that group, I am afraid to say. Nothing personal, but, just as Justin asked you not to hijack this thread with your not-mainstream ideas, I ask you not to co-opt me as someone who shares your ideas or even thinks that they are well thought out or represent expert thinking... some of your ideas may, but I often (usually?) feel otherwise.

[awm]

Perhaps this is easier for people like me who play 4th suit artificial even in GF auctions. :lol:

 

In any case, it doesn't make much sense to me that one would bid 2NT, then remove partner's raise to 3NT because of fear that notrump is the wrong spot. If your hand is that poor for notrump, why bid 2NT in the first place? And what does partner do if he really has the diamonds locked up and wanted to play 3NT?

 

So I vote that removing 3NT to 4♥ must be a slam try. Since any hand with three hearts would not bid 2NT, it should be a slam try with a strong heart doubleton. It sounds non-forcing to me, so I think it's non-forcing. I like the Mikeh example hand, although perhaps a better example would be:

 

xx

AQ

Axxx

AKxxx

 

It seems that if the hearts are as good as AQJTx, opener can suggest the 5-2 fit slam himself over 4NT (see jdonn's comment). But if opener's hearts are KJTxx this will probably not occur to him. So I'd say usually TWO heart honors (tight), enough extra for a 4NT call, likely doubleton spade (some ruffing possibility is a good thing) and not enough to force to slam (so like 16-18 or 17-19).

[gnasher]

I really don't agree that it can be 3235 with no diamond stopper. In my opinion if you rebid 2N with that (fine), you just pass 3N. If you are not willing to pass 3N you have to just bid 3H or 4H to begin with.

If you have to play in 4♥ with the 3235 type, surely it's still useful to differentiate between this and the hands with three-card support?

 

I'd play 4♥ as a slam try because I don't have a more useful meaning for it. In your methods, you have two commonly occurring hand types that have to bid to 4♥, and two sequences that get you to 4♥. Why not use these two sequences to distinguish between the two hand types, and forget the rather obscure slam-try meaning?

 

Edit: I've just seen that someone has moved the goalposts - you were playing Precision, where this argument wouldn't apply. It would, however, apply playing standard 2/1, which is what I think everyone assumed when you posted this question.

[kenrexford]

The idea that 4♥ removes the contract from 3NT to a better spot seems, IMO, rather silly. That makes the 2NT call essentially a call made with a wild hope that Opener has 6-4 and can make my 4♥ call less ambiguous or less potentially costly (partner will not move over 3♥-P-4♥). But, the end result was speeding the auction up when trying to slow the auction down. Just bite in deep and bid 4♥ the first time.

 

Now, I can see a problem with this analysis, however. Responder wants to consider whether perhaps the best end spot is five of his major, perhaps. Getting under 3♣ allows Opener to rebid 3♣, which might be a good thing. 2NT is the more flexible bid from that perspective.

 

The question, then, seems to boil down to style. For me, 3♦ as a waiting bid makes sense, but I have played where 2NT is a waiting bid. Each is plausible and workable, as long as there is agreement. Barring that, 4♥ was a dangerous call in this sequence and justly rewarded.

 

(I hope I am not chastised for non-expert hijacking!!! LOL)

[mikeh]

Let's see if we can discern a clear meaning, in case any of us are tempted to inflict this call on partner in the future.... we've had a nice, detailed discussion and a picture emerges..

 

 

Yes, 4♥ shows one or more of the following:

 

3=3=3=4 signoff

 

3=2=3=5 or 2=2=4=5 13-15

 

1=2=4=6 good hand, not clear if forcing

 

Q10x KJ xxx AKJxx or its like

 

xx AQ Axxx AKxxx or its like, with 2 heart honours, non-forcing but invitational

 

xx Kx AKxx AKxxx or its like, with 1 heart honour, non-forcing but invitational

 

Some hand with Hx in hearts and 15-17.. .forcing

 

Some hand with about 18 and Hx in hearts and forcing

 

Hmmm.... well, if I can just keep track of who thought which, we'd have some potential partnerships :lol: Or not :)

 

Note to self: don't bid this way B)

[kenrexford]

Mike,

 

I think you left out 4♥ as an empathetic splinter in clubs, with an assumed diamond fit because of an implied but not shown minor canape, which is the obvious stand-out meaning.

[mikeh]

Mike,

 

I think you left out 4♥ as an empathetic splinter in clubs, with an assumed diamond fit because of an implied but not shown minor canape, which is the obvious stand-out meaning.

Some meanings are so obvious, that it really would insult the expert readers of this forum to point them out... but any non-experts who have crept in by mistake are indebted to you, Ken, for reminding us of this (clear) meaning.

[foo]

Foo you are not an advanced or expert at bridge, please don't derail my thead. I posted this auction to get the views of advanced and/or expert posters.

And you are getting them. Your comment is both assuming and arrogant.

 

In fact, not only are you getting the opinion of =this= advanced or expert player, you are also getting the opinions of the calls and emails I've made on this topic to other expert players.

 

FTR, mikeh is well in step with them. All of them think this is an interesting and not well discussed sequence.

 

Please check your assumptions and attitude at the door.

Please, please don't quote me as someone who agrees with your posts. I don't disagree with all of them.. but:

 

there are those with whom I am in frequent agreement and with whose p.ov. I can empathize and understand even when I disagree on the particular argument in question (justin, josh, frances, han, and a lot of others who I hope I don't insult by not listing here) and those with whom I often but not always find myself disagreeing. I wil not name them.. they know who they are and so do other frequent readers.. you are in that group, I am afraid to say. Nothing personal, but, just as Justin asked you not to hijack this thread with your not-mainstream ideas, I ask you not to co-opt me as someone who shares your ideas or even thinks that they are well thought out or represent expert thinking... some of your ideas may, but I often (usually?) feel otherwise.

No insult was intended or implied to you mikeh. Nor was I claiming you were in agreement with me on this topic or any other.

 

All I said was that your original comment saying that this is a rare and little analyzed or discussed auction for you is similar to the experience of other experts I've discussed this auction with.

 

That's it. An affirmation of your original POV about the rarity of this auction. No more. No less.

 

As for how mainstream or not my viewpoints are, that's a different and orthogonal issue from whether the ideas are any good or not.

 

Bridge Bidding Theory is not and should not be static. Evolution is an important part of the process. I try to differentiate and classify any ideas I post appropriately; and I have been known to just as publicly change my mind when I think a better argument is presented than my own.

 

In any event, I'll get off my response to this Ad Hominem sub thread and back on topic now. Han has made a very good and thought provoking post as to what hand types this sequence should show that deserves attention.

[Winstonm]

I glanced through this thread and may have missed something, but it seems to me the consensus is either 3334 or doubleton heart honor/diamonds cards.

 

In such case, where there is a valid argument for both cases, the choice should come down to frequency. In my mind, there is more chance to hold a doubleton heart slam try hand than precisely 3334 that cannot be shown otherwise.

 

I would take this as honor x, slam try, non-forcing.

[foo]

Here's my counter argument to the idea that 1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4H shows Hh in ♥'s

 

IMHO it should show a hand like Kx_xxx_KQx_AKhxx

 

This is a hand where We might easily have a slam. Or not be safe even at the 5 level because we have weak trumps.

 

IMHO, the strong supporting sequence 1M-2m;foo-3M should promise at least hxx in support for that reason.

 

Which means we need a sequence for NT'y hands with xxx in support.

 

The OP sequence seems right for that purpose and will come up far more often if it shows xxx in support rather than Hh in support.

 

That leaves the perfectly valid question as to what to do with those hands with Hh in support and interested in slam.

I freely admit I am not yet sure. But I'm thinking about it.

[Winstonm]

The obvious is the meaning also depends on the usage of an immediate 2N.

 

If 1H-2N can be used as natural, it pretty much eliminates the 3334 with bad trumps.

[foo]

So here is my complete "modest proposal" for handling all the hand types implied by this thread. I present this as a SUGGESTION in the hopes of advancing the State of the Art and evoking thoughtful discussion.

 

I do not claim this to be the best possible structure. It may very well be flawed. That's why I am bringing it up here. Nor am I claiming that any of this is "standard" in any way. Every expert I've talked to says

a= this is not a well defined area.

b= that this is deep enough in the auction and detailed enough that this discussion is only appropriate for mature partnerships.

 

Some assumptions

1M-2m;2foo-3m is GF

4SF is on in 2/1 auctions

These are slam interested Responding hands.

 

=3334

=2344

=2335

=3325

=2326 (Some. Judgment call.)

with xxx in ♥'s

1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4H

with hxx or better in ♥'s

1H-2C;2S-3H;etc

 

=3235 or =2245

with xx or hx in ♥'s

...and D stoppers

1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4N

...w/o D Stoppers

1H-2C;2S-3D!etc

 

with Hh in ♥'s

hhx_hh_xxx_hhxxx or hxx_hh_xxx_hhhxx or hx_hh_xxxx_hhxxx

1H-2C;2S-3D!etc

xxx_hh_xxx_hhhxx (may not be good enough) or xx_hh_xxxx_hhhxx

1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4C!

xxx_hh_hhx_hhxxx or xx_hh_hxxx_hhxxx

1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4D!

hxx_hh_hxx_hhxxx or hxx_hh_hhx_hxxxx or hhx_hh_hxx_hxxxx or

hx_hh_hxxx_hxxxx or ... All Suits are Stopped.

1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4S!

 

The above list of hand types is supposed to be complete enough to make the point as to what hand types are involved for each sequence. It is not intended to be exhaustive.

 

I ?think? this handles all the hand types at a safe auction level while allowing the partnership to find out what it needs to know in all cases.

 

What do people think?

[bobbywjch]

So here is my complete "modest proposal" for handling all the hand types implied by this thread. I present this as a SUGGESTION in the hopes of advancing the State of the Art and evoking thoughtful discussion.

 

I do not claim this to be the best possible structure. It may very well be flawed. That's why I am bringing it up here. Nor am I claiming that any of this is "standard" in any way. Every expert I've talked to says

a= this is not a well defined area.

b= that this is deep enough in the auction and detailed enough that this discussion is only appropriate for mature partnerships.

 

Some assumptions

1M-2m;2foo-3m is GF

4SF is on in 2/1 auctions

These are slam interested Responding hands.

 

=3334

=2344

=2335

=3325

=2326 (Some. Judgment call.)

with xxx in ♥'s

1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4H

with hxx or better in ♥'s

1H-2C;2S-3H;etc

 

=3235 or =2245

with xx or hx in ♥'s

...and D stoppers

1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4N

...w/o D Stoppers

1H-2C;2S-3D!etc

 

with Hh in ♥'s

hhx_hh_xxx_hhxxx or hxx_hh_xxx_hhhxx or hx_hh_xxxx_hhxxx

1H-2C;2S-3D!etc

xxx_hh_xxx_hhhxx (may not be good enough) or xx_hh_xxxx_hhhxx

1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4C!

xxx_hh_hhx_hhxxx or xx_hh_hxxx_hhxxx

1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4D!

hxx_hh_hxx_hhxxx or hxx_hh_hhx_hxxxx or hhx_hh_hxx_hxxxx or

hx_hh_hxxx_hxxxx or ... All Suits are Stopped.

1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4S!

 

The above list of hand types is supposed to be complete enough to make the point as to what hand types are involved for each sequence. It is not intended to be exhaustive.

 

I ?think? this handles all the hand types at a safe auction level while allowing the partnership to find out what it needs to know in all cases.

 

What do people think?

must be a comp geek

[foo]

?? "must be a comp geek" ??

 

I was not aware I was using "comp geek" jargon?

 

The goal was to tightly define the hand types and sequences involved. I used language that was as clear and concise as I could. If it was not understandable, or if someone has a better way to communicate the information, I'm "all ears"?

 

The kind of detail I'm showing here is often seen in the System notes of expert partnerships.

[han]

comp = complete?

[foo]

comp = complete?

*shrug* He'll explain if he wants to.

 

Back on topic, What do you think of my proposal Han?

[han]

Sorry, I didn't read it yet.

[jdonn]

LOL "yet"

[Apollo81]

Agree with the Q10x KJ xxx AKJxx construction.

I would not bid 2NT on any hand with ♦xxx